15 thoughts on “Why Tea-Party Groups Were Targeted”
The article says that IRS agents took note when groups used anti-Obama rhetoric. Of course they did — that’s one indication of whether a group is primarily political in nature! If the people reviewing 501c4 applications aren’t paying attention to group statements about a political candidate, they aren’t doing their jobs.
If you read the whole article you learn that the IRS also scrutinized The Citizens for the Preservation of Rural Murrysville, an anti-development group, because they endorsed local candidates. Is that a scandal?
Is that a scandal? Only if you believe the first amendment means exactly what it says. Or if you’ve sworn an oath to defend the constitution. Or if you have a functioning brain.
The law says that the 501c4 is only for groups whose primary purpose is something other than electoral politics. A group that endorses candidates shouldn’t expect to sail through the 501c4 application process.
So, Jim, in your opinion, should OfA have been scrutinized and stonewalled?
Oops, already asked and (not really) answered.
It seems to me that Organizing for Action is cutting it very close. They work for Obama’s policies, but because Obama isn’t eligible for re-election they can say they aren’t involved in electoral politics. That seems dubious to me, but it’s similar to the argument being made by tea party groups — that they’re only working for issues, not candidates (even though it’s obvious which candidates support their issues), and therefore eligible for 501c4 status. OFA claims that they are releasing the names of their donors, so I don’t know why they even want 501c4 status; keeping donors secret is the only real advantage to being a 501c4. For that matter, I don’t know why all these tea party groups care so much about keeping their donors secret.
I would have no trouble with the IRS rejecting OFA’s 501c4 application. It may have gone through quickly because there was so little information to go on — they applied before the group had really done anything. Now that the group is active the IRS should revisit its decision.
“I would have no trouble with the IRS rejecting OFA’s 501c4 application.”
But they didn’t.
“Now that the group is active the IRS should revisit its decision.”
And they wont.
You and I may well agree on whether or not these types of groups should get and special status but that is not what this is about. This is about persecution and favoritism based on political party. If Democrats held their own groups to the same standards they force on others, you might have a leg to stand on.
So how did OFA escape scrutiny?
And how did Crossroads GPS? I don’t know, but Crossroads GPS’s 501c4 approval doesn’t prove the IRS is in the tank for the GOP, and Organizing for Action’s doesn’t prove the IRS is in the tank for the Democrats.
Jim, certainly you can produce a few samples to support your argument. Based on the statistics you are the only one talking about outliers. The rest of us are discussing the number of groups that fell within three or four sigma.
The problem with looking at it statistically is that the sample space is not uniform. There were hundreds of applications from tea party groups. There weren’t a similar number of applications from groups that are like tea party groups except on the left, because there’s nothing like the tea party movement on the left. By contrast, Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS are pretty much mirror images, and the IRS treated them the same. That suggests that the issue with the tea party groups isn’t their ideology, but the fact that they were a new type of group in a gray area of the law — and there were a lot of them.
There are a host of OWS and other progressive groups. Historically, Democrats have had a huge advantage in using groups like this and it was only when Republicans tried to operate in similar ways that Democrats decided something must be done. But you know, done to other party’s groups not their own.
The problem with looking at it statistically is that the sample space is not uniform.
There is no problem applying statistical methods to this data. But it is fun to watch you channel Carney to explain your point of view.
The Tea Party groups were targeted because they are thought criminal terrorist organizations. Their raciss crimethink was causing counter-revolutionary terrorism. Therefore, govt cameras must be installed in all bedrooms.
Jim, certainly you can produce a few samples to support your argument.
The article says that IRS agents took note when groups used anti-Obama rhetoric. Of course they did — that’s one indication of whether a group is primarily political in nature! If the people reviewing 501c4 applications aren’t paying attention to group statements about a political candidate, they aren’t doing their jobs.
If you read the whole article you learn that the IRS also scrutinized The Citizens for the Preservation of Rural Murrysville, an anti-development group, because they endorsed local candidates. Is that a scandal?
Is that a scandal? Only if you believe the first amendment means exactly what it says. Or if you’ve sworn an oath to defend the constitution. Or if you have a functioning brain.
The law says that the 501c4 is only for groups whose primary purpose is something other than electoral politics. A group that endorses candidates shouldn’t expect to sail through the 501c4 application process.
So, Jim, in your opinion, should OfA have been scrutinized and stonewalled?
Oops, already asked and (not really) answered.
It seems to me that Organizing for Action is cutting it very close. They work for Obama’s policies, but because Obama isn’t eligible for re-election they can say they aren’t involved in electoral politics. That seems dubious to me, but it’s similar to the argument being made by tea party groups — that they’re only working for issues, not candidates (even though it’s obvious which candidates support their issues), and therefore eligible for 501c4 status. OFA claims that they are releasing the names of their donors, so I don’t know why they even want 501c4 status; keeping donors secret is the only real advantage to being a 501c4. For that matter, I don’t know why all these tea party groups care so much about keeping their donors secret.
I would have no trouble with the IRS rejecting OFA’s 501c4 application. It may have gone through quickly because there was so little information to go on — they applied before the group had really done anything. Now that the group is active the IRS should revisit its decision.
“I would have no trouble with the IRS rejecting OFA’s 501c4 application.”
But they didn’t.
“Now that the group is active the IRS should revisit its decision.”
And they wont.
You and I may well agree on whether or not these types of groups should get and special status but that is not what this is about. This is about persecution and favoritism based on political party. If Democrats held their own groups to the same standards they force on others, you might have a leg to stand on.
So how did OFA escape scrutiny?
And how did Crossroads GPS? I don’t know, but Crossroads GPS’s 501c4 approval doesn’t prove the IRS is in the tank for the GOP, and Organizing for Action’s doesn’t prove the IRS is in the tank for the Democrats.
Jim, certainly you can produce a few samples to support your argument. Based on the statistics you are the only one talking about outliers. The rest of us are discussing the number of groups that fell within three or four sigma.
The problem with looking at it statistically is that the sample space is not uniform. There were hundreds of applications from tea party groups. There weren’t a similar number of applications from groups that are like tea party groups except on the left, because there’s nothing like the tea party movement on the left. By contrast, Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS are pretty much mirror images, and the IRS treated them the same. That suggests that the issue with the tea party groups isn’t their ideology, but the fact that they were a new type of group in a gray area of the law — and there were a lot of them.
There are a host of OWS and other progressive groups. Historically, Democrats have had a huge advantage in using groups like this and it was only when Republicans tried to operate in similar ways that Democrats decided something must be done. But you know, done to other party’s groups not their own.
The problem with looking at it statistically is that the sample space is not uniform.
There is no problem applying statistical methods to this data. But it is fun to watch you channel Carney to explain your point of view.
The Tea Party groups were targeted because they are thought criminal terrorist organizations. Their raciss crimethink was causing counter-revolutionary terrorism. Therefore, govt cameras must be installed in all bedrooms.
Jim, certainly you can produce a few samples to support your argument.
You ask for so little…